Dont join the Army - theyre bullies.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Acid_Tin, Apr 13, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I strongly suggest you take a deep breath and sit down before reading this.

    On p16 of The Daily Telegraph in the 'Ask John Clare' section:

    This makes my blood boil. Weary cynicism about the Army (something we're all guilty of) is one thing - but this is blatantly one-sided reportage from a rag that should know better.

    We are not a fcuking Outreach programme - we train to fight the Queen's enemies and kill them. As a by-product, we need to train people to do it. Although I'm far too angry to be remotely coherent right now, I will never buy that rag again. I am even writing to them pointing out a few 'inconsistencies'.

  2. let us know if "The Torygraph" responds to your letter
  3. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Well, I 'm sorry, but that's just the impression that people are getting - this is why the young Tommy is not joining anymore, as Mummy won't let him.

    Recent publicity regarding Deepcut, Bullying, etc., reflects very, very badly on the Army as a whole. Deepcut, especially, has nearly destroyed public confidence.

    Don't blame the Torygraph - John Clare is usually a sensible columnist. He is, after all, quoting from reports prepared as a result of public concern - he, and anyone else, are free to read them. Blame instead the system that trains young, unprepared men and women to Recruit standard, and then leaves them in poor accomodation, with little to do, for a long time until a Trade Course is avaialable. As to injuries - he is again stating facts. A lot of recruits are injured - but why is another matter (too soft a life beforehand? - plenty is being done to address this.)

    Don't shoot the messenger. We can't afford - especially at the present time - to be too divorced from the 'real world', no matter how much we may not like it's views.
  4. RTFQ


    Words fail me. I sometimes wonder what the hell we do our job for. At EVERY turn this country proves it isn't worth the effort. Roll on our subsumation into Greater Europe/the Islamic Nation/Lesser Albania, England is morally bankrupt and you can have it.
  5. Snowy - no probs with this at all. My issue is that he responds to the question by quoting exclusively from one report. If he had balanced it with other inputs, I wouldn't be so bothered - everyone has an opinion after all.

    I agree that John Clare is usually fairly sensible - but he has done himself no favours at all here.
  6. I cannot even think to give a reason response to that drivel, Mr Clare, whoever the fcuk he is, should know better than to belittle the Queens best.
    Obviously he has had a bad experience with the militiary. That report is something I would probably read on the Uniform 17 forum(I think that is it name). I am disgusted that the editor of the Telegraph let this reply go through. It will also send out alot of bad vibs to potential recruits, although I can't see that many of them reading the telegraph (boring sh1t paper with no t1ts), so that is maybe a God send.

    Who on earth is the Adult Learning Inspectorite, I am going to see if I can their web page.

    I thought we had quite a good entry level, he obviously does not. What inspectors were out in Iraq, the ALI, I do not think so. He is ranting away without the slightest bit of back up.

    I will e-mailing the Sh1tegraph, as to why this was allowed to be published, and to where Mr Clare has obtained this damming, but untrue, information. :evil:

    I believe in freedom of speech, but this is lying and ranting.
  7. I fully agree with you Calypso.

    I'm from military family and literally all my close relatives are (were) in Russian (Soviet) army. I was born in garrison and spent my childhood with other sons and daughters of officers.

    Blackmouthing of Army in Russia is a serious problem too. Mostly not ethnically Russian 'journalists' are super-active in this dirty business.

    As to Telegraph then it and Guardian are the best newspapers in the UK. Our friend Agent_Smith called Telegraph as ToryGraph. I guess he is right. I heard another definition - TelAvivaGraph.

  8. What he has stated is in essence true, but what he fails to do is offer a balanced report which highlights that good along with the bad in order that the reader can make up their opwn mind. Why didnt he go and speak to men and women in the army and see how they actually feel about life on the inside rather than speak to those who have failed through injury or unsuitability?

    Just smacks of poor journalism to me! :roll:
  9. msr

    msr LE

    The committee took evidence from Rear Admiral Goodall, who said that “the Army in particular...has a significant problem with basic skills provision.”

    Goodall told the committee that “ ‘very few’ applicants had a reading age of seven, but those with a reading age of 11 were not uncommon.” MoD figures cited in this section reveal that 50 percent of all recruits entering the army have literacy or numeracy skills at levels on or below Entry Level Three—the equivalent reading ability expected of an 11-year-old. According to the report, it was not until April 2004 “that applicants with the equivalent of a reading age of a five-year-old have been rejected.”
    not an ideal website to quote from.

  10. This is my point entirely A_S. We suffer constantly diminshing funds; a hierarchy that cares less and less about 'the shop floor' and more about peerages and perks; less interest from politicans and so on, yet we consistently deliver returns far in excess of any input. How would any of this be possible in an atmosphere of organised bullying, racism and stupidity that is alluded to here?

    I love the conceit that the low reports of bullying are 'too low to be credible'. What fcuking tosh - this is journo speak for 'we didn't like what we were told so we rubbished them'. Has it occurred to these muppets that we (the Army) would gain NOTHING from falsifying bullying statistics - and potentially lose everything in the long term.

    Well Mr Clare - my opinion is that someone in your wretched in-bred family has recently failed to get into the Army - citing 'weak bones' or something similar - and now you're bitter and twisted.

    Get a life, you cnut.

    Edited to add: msr - no issue with our 'raw material' - this has always been the case after all - it's what we turn these people into that counts!
  11. Otherwise Known as the Jerusalem Post.
  12. Surely this has always been true though? Why would someone with 14 GCSEs, 5 A Levels and a Degree join the Army to earn £13,000 a year when they could be on £40,000 plus in civvie street. It's a fact that to get in certain Corps you don't need any qualifications, and you can earn (for someone with no qualifications) decent money, with cheap housing, "free" food and an opportunity to see places that a kid growing up in somewhere like inner city Liverpool, Newcastle or Glasgow can only dream of (even today, when most of the good postings have been closed down or scaled back). To poorer people, the Army is a chance to escape without asking for any academic qualifications, to the richer or luckier people, the Army is something that pays a third of what a civillian company would pay, for longer hours, far more more danger, more inconvinience and (especially for the "Playstation Generation") discipline and physical effort.
  13. Also, having seen training/education on both sides of the fence, as it were, I would say the army has better results for your average yoof than state schools.
  14. msr

    msr LE

    Here's the sentence before the bit I quoted:

    Statistics on reading abilities cited in the committee confirm that the army tends to recruit overwhelmingly from the poorest and most disadvantaged layers of young people

    And here is the paragraph after:

    Nonetheless, the committee commended the army’s “highly trained, capable and successful service personnel,” concurring favourably with Professor Wessely’s remarks that “they [soldiers] are not like middle-aged academics or Maudsley social workers. They are somewhat tough people and they are to do a difficult job of fighting, not emoting. Part of that is that they learn to repress emotions and fear.”

    Like it or not, there is clearly a public perception that the Army is not a good career choice at the moment and no amount of huffing and puffing on this board will change that.

  15. Hmmm. Facts are facts, and as a troopy I know that the reading and writing ability of some of the soliders is not good. BUT whose fault is that, the Army which is the employer or the state education system that teaches them in the first place.
    Soldiers do not join the army with a certain reading age and then mysteriously lose it. The education system, for whatever reason, has failed them long before they join up.
    In recent years teh army has addressed this - the whole CLM approach and we will see where we get with that.